Opinion

Coffey v. . Shuler

  • 112 N.C. 622
  • 16 S.E. 911
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
Feb 5, 1893
Status
Published
Author
Shephjskj
On the bench
Shephjskj
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 46.0%

The opinion

Shephjskj), (J. J.:

If the oral promise alleged in the complaint was made by the defendant to the plaintiffs it is

*625

plain that it cannot bo enforced against the separate personal estate of the defendant, as it is not in writing, is without the written consent of the husband and does not charge such separate estate.

Flaum

v.

Wallace,

103 N. C., 296 . In order to avoid this difficulty it is insisted that the promise was made to the husband, and therefore the principles laid down in Elaum’s case do not apply, and that she can charge, in favor of her husband, a large part of the capital of her personal estate without any formality whatever. .By no means admitting such a proposition, but conceding i.t for the purposes of the argument, we are nevertheless unable to see how the plaintiffs can recover. If, as contended, the promise was made by the wife to the husband, it is well settled that the plaintiffs, if they are not parties to the contract, cannot sue upon it.

Morehead

v.

Wriston, 73

N. C., 398; Brown on Actions, 99; Pollock on Contracts, 191. This would seem to put an end to the plaintiffs’ action, but granting that under the Code of Civil Procedure the action may be maintained by the real parties in interest, which in this case it is claimed are the plaintiffs, for whose benefit it is alleged the contract was made, we must still deny their right to recover.

If, as insisted, the plaintiffs can sue, if is because they are substantially the parties interested in the contract, and as they were present at the time of the promise and impliedly assented to the same, and as they claim that their alleged forbearance constituted the consideration (there really being none moving from the husband), we cannot but regard it, at least in an action of this nature, as substantially an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and therefore within the case of

Flaum

v.

Wallace, supra.

Entertaining these views, it is unnecessary to discuss the other interesting questions raised by the learned counsel.

Affirmed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.